Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Illumina Inc. Message Board

  • spartusbattery2000 spartusbattery2000 Mar 23, 2004 5:42 PM Flag

    Tony, welcome to the board

    Hey, this message board has not been so interesting since piper posted a year ago.

    Tony, you sound for real to me. I suspect there are others that got shafted by ILMN also, but got a small shaft that was not worth a court case.

    One thing has not changed, a bunch of ignorant rude fools posting stuff to the message board.

    You fools: shineroflight, bloodnoun (using the F word against a fellow board member, how dare you), daddycat, and boredoomm2000, ought to get some manners and some brains.

    As for the evaporation rate of water being 200 times the rate of that other toxic stuff (of which I am not personally familiar), you think that makes it safe? What concentration would you like to breath of silane, uranium, anthrax, HIV, or a long list of other nasty stuff. Evaporation rate relative to water does not mean anything about the level that is dangerous. There is a lot of stuff that if you smell it, you're dead; other stuff you can smell all day and it does not matter.

    I respect a person who has the guts to post a concern they have, using their own name, even if the identified problem later turns out to be a non-problem. When it comes to irreversible health problems, it is better to be cautious and err on the side of over-concern.

    As for ILMN as a whole, noone knows what's going to happen. They could win their suit (or arbitration) or lose it. They could sell more systems or not sell more. The management could be a bunch of idiots, the company could succeed anyway. They could be geniuses and the company could fail.

    People on the outside have little information and don't know the truth, people on the inside have too much information and the truth is buried.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • You know, for someone who claims he isn't talking to me, you sure have a lot to say.

      Your post does finally seem to at least partially notice the salient point since you said "if correct".

      My point has always been that if you don't have facts, then you shouldn't be making allegations in a public forum. It is wrong, and I suspect that even you know that.

      And thank you for your concern, but worry not. I do not let emotions factor into my investment decisions. And that is one factor that has allowed me to do quite well.

    • Tony,

      I guess time will tell if the money is yours or not. Let's see how the appeal goes. Don't count that money just yet.

      And let me assure you that I am at peace with myself and the world. It would take far more than some off-the-wall remarks from a certified crackpot to change that.

      It is you, not I, that has spent a couple of weeks on this board playing the part of the tortured soul.

      And after these last few posts of yours, it is pretty obvious who should seek help.

    • Shiner: The money I receive from ILMN is not someone else's money. It is my money. But for the illegal actions taken by the Company, I would have obtained it via capital gain. That was the opinion of a 12-person jury, a trial judge, and it is my opinion also.

      Let yor hatred go, Shiner, and if necessary get help. It will eat you alive. I think you can related to Richard Nixon, a paranoid president if ever there was one. He said:

      "Always remember others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them. And then you destroy yourself."
      --Richard M. Nixon, in his White House farewell

      I wish for you some peace in this lifetime.

    • I am truly a moron. Here I go again.

      I am not hung up on the "women" factor, you are. You say that there must be proof that womem work in the area in order to have a problem, I say it does not matter if women are actually working around the stuff or not. No point discussing this anymore, you are wrong, I am right, and we will see how the courts or OSHA sort it out.

      I think open containers of hazardous material on the bench without ventilation (Tony's allegation), if correct, is a fact that substantiates the claim. No more is needed.

      You think OSHA makes public every complaint and investigation that is ongoing? Just because we haven't hear about it doesn't mean they were not notified.

      Shiner, I suspect that you are actually a nice guy or gal, even though you are abusive here on the board. I think we are just having fun here, calling each other names, but don't get too passionate about your position. Maybe you are long on ILMN and are offended by any negative remark about the company. That means you are emotional, and probably making emotional investment decisions. Watch out for that. The stock will not rise or fall because of anything we say here, anyway.

      (If you look back at Spartus's posts of the last year or so, I think you will find some very cogent arguments in defense of a sensible view about the world. Maybe he/she is a moron. You will also see an fairly neutral position about the prospects for ILMN. Mostly responses that try to moderate the far out views others have, which are many times unsupported by logic and human experience.)

    • Tony,

      That�s quite the magnanimous offer. Maybe I should nominate you for humanitarian of the year.

      Your generosity under whelms me. Let me get this straight; if someone gives you $10 Million, you will donate $40,000? Wow, four tenths of one percent. And just when you�d be needing a tax deduction to offset some gains. Hmmm�.

      I tell you what, if someone gives me $10 Million dollars, I will happily quadruple your donations to each of the charities you mentioned, and I will add four more charities of my choosing at the same level.

      It sure is easy spending a tiny fraction of someone else�s money isn�t it.

      Again, your real motivations are showing.

    • Spartus,

      I'm broken-hearted to say the least that you won't be talking to me in the future. I just don't know how I'll sleep at night.

      You truly are a moron aren't you. But then again that has already been well established on this board for some time now (I invite readers to look back through his previous posts to this board over many months for loads of evidence).

      You appear to be the one hung up on the women thing. You missed the point for the third time didn't you. Here it is in wording even you should be able to understand:

      Tony has no facts whatsoever to substantiate his claims.

      And rest assured, if Tony had reported this to OSHA, and they had any conerns at all, we would all have heard about it by now. Afterall, Tony has all his inside sources at the company that would have told him about the SWAT-style raid and the evidence of evil. And I also haven't noticed a news story on TV or in the paper yet. The plain fact of the matter remains; if Tony thought OSHA would be concerned at all, he would have gone to them instead of posting to this stock board in the first place.

      And I was already pretty sure that you had help with the "Shiner of dark" thing since you are obviously not even that creative.

    • Shiner, you appear to be a civics expert, but don't know shit about the law. The "presumed innocent until proven guilty" bit is only for criminal cases, not civil cases. (I read the newspaper and watched the O.J. trial) Anyway, that's only in court. We out here in the real world can think any thing we want. And in the regulatory world, as Tony points out, as a practical matter, many times you are presumed guilty until establishing your safety.

      And how do you know that OSHA has not been contacted?

      Oops, I forgot I am not talking to you anymore.

    • daddycat: I'll try to be briefer here than in previous posts.

      I don't disagree with you insofar as what actually occurs out there in the research world.

      But sitting in a witness chair, with a lawyer bending your words and actions to fit their theory of their case, has a profound effect on how you think about everything you say and do in the future. Imagine this dialog:

      ----------

      Mr. Cochran: Dr. Daddycat, do you supervise the research of Ms. Jane Doe?

      Dr. Daddycat: Yes.

      Q: For how long have you been her boss?

      A: For three years.

      Q: Did you direct Ms. Doe to work on a project requiring the use of a chemical known as, "formamide?"

      A: Well, 'require' is not the word I would use...

      Mr. Cochran: Your honor, I move to strike the witness' answer as unresponsive.

      Judge Sockittoem: Sustained. The witness is directed to answer the question.

      Dr. Daddycat: What was the question again?

      Mr. Cochran: Would the Court Recorder read the question back?

      Court Reporter: Did-you-direct-Ms.-Doe-to-work-on-a-project-requiring-the-use-of-a-chemical-known-as-form-hamid?"

      Dr. Daddycat: Yes.

      Mr. Cochran: Would Ms. Doe have possibly experience a negative performance review if she had refused to carry out your instructions?

      A: Possibly, yes.

      Q: Dr. Daddycat, are you aware that formamide is listed by OSHA as a 'teratogen'?

      A: Yes.

      Q: Would you please explain for the jury what a 'teratogen' is?

      A: A teratogen is a chemical that has been shown in scientific studies in animals to cause birth defects in animals.

      Q: And OSHA requires all users of formamide to consider formamide a likely human teratogen, isn't that correct?

      A: Yes.

      Q: Please describe for the jury the conditions under which Ms. Doe used formamide while she was still employed at the company.

      A: Well, it was company practice to allow aqueous... that's water... solutions of formamide to stand uncovered on benches in the lab for periods of about 24 hours.

      Q: And was it common for these solutions to partially evaporate during that 24 hour period?

      A: Yes; essentially, every time.

      Q: Dr. Daddycat, how much formamide did Ms. Doe inhale each day she was at work.

      A: I don't honestly know. It probably wasn't much at all because...

      Q: But it was some, correct?

      A: Probably, yes.

      Q: Dr. Daddycat, when did you first become aware that Ms. Doe was expecting a child?

      A: Let's see; that would have been about June of 2003.

      Q: And at that time, how far along was the pregnancy?

      A: Jane didn't say, but based on the date she gave birth it must have been about three months.

      Q: Dr. Daddycat, at what time did you learn that Ms. Doe's child was born with seven fingers on each hand?

      A: (Witness places face in hands.)

      Q: Dr. Daddycat, would you like the Court Reporter to re-read the question to refresh your memory?

      A: No, I..... I just know what you're trying to do here.

      Q: Tell the jury, Dr. Daddycat- what am I trying to do here?

      A: You're trying to make me look like someone who intentionally placed my Associate in a dangerous environment, one that MIGHT have led to her baby's birth defect.

      Q: Dr. Daddycat, who is your supervisor?

      A: Dr. Timothy Leary. He's a very famous chemist.

      Q: I'm sure he is. Dr. Daddycat, did Dr. Leary direct you to assign Ms. Doe to work on the project involving formamide?

      A: No, I doubt he even really knew everything I did at the company.

      Q: And so are you saying that Ms. Doe worked with formamide at your and your alone direction?

      A: I guess so, yeah......

      ----------

      That day becomes the end of life as you formerly knew it.





      Sorry, I got carried away, but this is why the people directing technicians in the lab need to force them to fo

    • You keep getting hung up on whether there are women working in the area. You don't see how that is completely irrelevant. I agree that there may in fact be no risk, but your analysis is not the way to approach the issue. It appears that you are not worth talking to.

      Truthfully, I had help on the shinerof-dark thing.

    • Shiner: Your suggestion that I donate the money ILMN will be paying me to charities has stuck with me all day. It's a good idea. I can't promise to donate all $9-10M of it; the government, my three lawyers, and my wife would all have something to say about that.

      Still, I was only able to prove ILMN to be guilty because people years ago fought for my rights. It's an interesting trivia fact that the 'Americans with Disabilities Act' was signed by the first George Bush in 1990. Many fought so that I had the right to force ILMN to stand in front of a body (a jury) with control over the company's management team, and had the power to force ILMN to try to explain their actions. I do think it is right for me to "pay something forward" as a tribute to those brave firebrands who changed the Law.

      I promise here and now that I will use the money ILMN will pay me to support the following charities, at the level of $10,000 each:

      (1) The March of Dimes (www.modimes.org)

      (2) The Coalition for Persons Disabled by Mental Illness (www.cpdmi.org)

      (3) The ALCU (www.aclu.org)

      (4) The new Center for Holocaust, Genocide & Peace Studies here at the University of Nevada (www.unr.edu/chgps/blank.htm)

      Each one of these groups is doing work that is "on the side of the angels," and each of their causes is related to my case. While I realize the intent of your post was for something quite different, I think this is a silver lining that can come from the 'cloud' I've been under for five years now. I would much rather have remained at the company I co-founded and earned this money via stock appreciation, but it may just be that I make out better the ways things actually went.

      Tony

    • View More Messages
 
ILMN
220.07-0.61(-0.28%)Jul 2 4:00 PMEDT